LexSTATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. versus SHIV KARAMPAL SAHU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'f- [2009] 6 S.C.R. 63 STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. A v. SHIV KARAMPAL SAHU (Civil Appeal No. 2539 of 2009) APRIL 15, 2009 B " [S.B. SINHA ANCI CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] Administrative Law: Polley decision for appointment on compassionate c ground - Circular letter providing for appointment on compassionate ground in case of death of a government servant - Held: The benefit cannot be extended to the dependents of deceased who was not government servant - Circular dated 21.9.1987 and 9.8.2000 issued by Government D of Bihar, Circular dated 7.5.2003 issued by Government of Jharkhand. .. Subordinate legislation - Construction of - Held: Ordinarily should not be construed to be retrospective in operation - Rule of incorporation by reference should not be E applied unless a clear case is made out. Service law: Appointment - Compassionate appointment - Held: F Must be made keeping in view the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India - Such schemes cannot be given an expansive meaning as the constitutional scheme envisages that all persons who are entitled to be considere9 for appointment would be eligible for being G considered therefor - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 16. The State of Bihar issued a circular dated 9.8.2000 introducing a scheme for grant of compassionate i- 63 H 64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R A appointment to the dependants of those killed in terrorist attacks. Father of the respondent was not a government servant. He was allegedly killed by extremists on 19.5.2000. Respondent filed a representation for his appointment on compassionate ground on 5.11.2000 8 which was rejected. However, on 7.5.2003, the Government of Jharkhand, which came into being in terms of the provisions of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 took a policy decision that the matter relating to the appointment of the dependent of the deceased in the C terrorist violence should be given effect to in respect of those persons killed in violence after the date of formation of the State of Jharkhand, i.e., dated 15.10.2000. The respondent filed representation which was rejected on the ground that murder took place on 19.5.2000, i.e., 0 before 9.8.2000, therefore, case did not fall within ambit of the circular of Government of Bihar. Respondent filed writ petition. High Court held that although the respondent was paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation, but having regard to the circulars issued by the State of Jharkhand in the matter of appointment E on compassionate ground in general cases within a period of five years from the date of death, the same would also cover the instant case. Hence the appeal. F Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The scheme for grant of monetary compensation to the dependents of the deceased or injured who were affected in any kind of terrorist/virulent/ communal attack must be considered in terms of the G stipulations made in the circular letters containing policy decisions. Appointment on compassionate ground, must be made keeping in view the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Such schemes cannot be given an expansive meaning as the constitutional scheme envisages that all persons who are H -· ---- .. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. v. SHIV KARAMPAL 65 SAHU entitled to be considered fC'r appointment would be A eligible for being considered therefor. Any policy decision for appointment on compassionate ground must, therefore, receive a strict construction. [Para 9] [72-B-E] State of J & K and Ors. v. Sajad Ahmed Mir (2006) 5 8 SCC 766 and Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra & ors. 2008 (4) SCALE 637, relied on 2. A circular letter providing for appointment on compassionate ground in case of death of a government servant cannot be extended in case of the dependents C of the deceased who was not a government servant. A public employment must be offered to a person who is entitled therefor. All recruitments subject to just exceptions must be made in terms of the rules framed under the proviso appended to Article 309 of the D Constitution of India. A circular letter issued by the State cannot be issued de hors the constitutional scheme of making offer of public appointment. Moreover, a benevolent circular cannot be extended to a case which was not contemplated by the circular itself. [Paras 11 and E 12] [73-C-F] Official Liqui
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.